What is it with former generals and presidents these days? It used to be when the other guy took over, you STFU and let him do his job without criticism, undercutting him, or doing things to make his job difficult.
Whose side are they on, anyway?
Posted on 10/12/2007 5:27:19 PM PDT by paulat
Friday, October 12, 2007
Sanchez, former U.S. commander in Iraq, calls war 'a nightmare with no end in sight'
By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Saturday, October 13, 2007
AP file photo Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, V Corps Commanding General, at a welcoming ceremony for soldiers of the 1st Armored Division at their base in Wiesbaden, Germany, in October, 2004.
ARLINGTON, Va. – The former top commander of U.S. troops in Iraq slammed the handling of the war and gave a bleak assessment of the current situation in Iraq.
“There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight,” retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told a convention of military journalists on Friday.
Sanchez commanded U.S. troops in Iraq from June 2003 to July 2004. His controversial tenure saw the capture of Saddam Hussein and the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi government, but also the rise of the insurgency and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
While cleared of any wrongdoing, one report found that Sanchez and his deputy, "failed to ensure proper staff oversight of detention and interrogation operations."
Abu Ghraib was a sore subject Friday for Sanchez, who lambasted the media for using phrases like "dictatorial and somewhat dense," "liar" and "torturer" to describe him.
"I also refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany, for their extreme bias and single-minded focus on Abu Ghraib," he said.
But Sanchez reserved most of his venom Friday for U.S. officials, saying the U.S. government still has not brought all the resources needed to win in Iraq.
“From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power,” Sanchez said.
Continuing changes to military strategy alone will not achieve victory, rather it will only “stave off defeat,” he said.
“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable.”
Even now, the U.S. government has yet to launch a concerted effort to come up with a strategy to win in Iraq, Sanchez said. Such a strategy should involve political reconciliation among Iraqis, building up the Iraqi security forces and getting Iraq’s regional partners.
Sanchez acknowledged that U.S. officials have adopted that idea, but added that they do not have the necessary nonmilitary resources to carry it out.
“And it is not synchronized, and there is no enforcement of the strategy,” he said.
Sanchez said he realized there were serious challenges to the U.S. military’s strategy in Iraq as soon as he became the top military commander in Iraq.
Asked why he did not speak out about his concerns, Sanchez said general officers take an oath to carry out the orders of the president while in uniform.
“The last thing that America wants, the last thing that you want, is for currently serving general officers to stand up against our political leadership,” he said.
However, general officers do have the option of stepping down if they disagree with the country's leaders.
Sanchez said he felt he could not resign and go public with his reservations while he was in Iraq, because he feared that move could further jeopardize troops serving there.
“I think once you are retired, you have a responsibility to the nation, to your oath, to the country, to state your opinion,” he said.
© 2007 Stars and Stripes. All Rights Reserved.
This just hit Drudge.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
See also here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1910556/posts
I can see now why he is a former commander.
Thanks, SolidWood...there was nothing in that title I could have searched on....
The opinion of a guy who hasn't been in Iraq for 3 years really isn't that relevant.
With this guy in charge, it’s no wonder that the insurgency got out of control. What a loser!
My bad.
One more hopeful lining up for a job with a future Clinton administration.
I fail to see what Sanchez hoped to accomplish by making this statement. It is indeed unfortunate that we have people with so little moral fortitude these days. Every comment like this gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It signifies that if someone like this at the top feels this way, the troops in the field must be incredible demoralized, almost defeated.
What a major disappointment this guy turns out to be.
Well....at THAT time.....the situation in Iraq probably did look bleak....but, guess what.....it's NOW....2007
Interesting article.
Even more interesting thread.
We have a saying where I come from that
goes something like:
“The leader you support is right, moral, and wise, until you stop supporting him. Then he is becomes vile, stupid and wrong”.
If this guy is so bad, where were some of you in 2003 to criticize him?
Let’s take some responsibility (a conservative trait) and admit that some of the leadership chosen was poor, at least.
It's sour grapes. Payback for being pushed out of the Military.
And some of what he says will be ignored by the Bush-bots.
I wonder when his book is being released. Must be soon.
This is gonna leave a mark. General Sanchez has the standing and the knowledge to make Bush and the Pentagon squirm.
Another Mike Brown. Attacked by the leftist media, thrown to the wolves by the Bush Administration.
That is my take also MNJohnnie. Shame on him though for giving aide and comfort to the enemy with his diatribe.
Stuff happens in wars; good leaders move beyond the “stuff” and lead. Sanchez is wallowing in his lack of a 4th star. Shame on him. He is no better than Batiste imho.
Maybe he thinks it's the truth and wants a more effective policy implemented.
Just because he publicly disagrees with Bush doesn't instantly make him a crossdressing commie symp.
I don't know what the truth is regarding Iraq but I won't automatically dismiss criticism from the military as partisan BS.
Last week ABC news reported the Republican candidate receiving the most contributions from the military.
Guess who?
Ron Paul.
Veeeery interesting!!
The point is, you don’t make this type of comment in public. You make it to your superior and let it go up through the ranks. If the policies in Iraq were truly as bad as Sanchez say they are, Bush would be hearing it from a number of Generals.
To make this in public is unforgivable.
DoughtyOne wrote: “It signifies that if someone like this at the top feels this way, the troops in the field must be incredible demoralized, almost defeated.”
The troops in the field are doing great and aren’t “demoralized.” I’m sure the MSM could find SOME disgruntled or demoralized soldiers, but I doubt they could find many.
Seems like the type of article where context for statements is sorely needed. I note he appears to excoriate Congress at least as much as the Administration...I bet most only see one side or the other in his comments.
Yeah, I thought so too. I’d like to see it confirmed elsewhere, but it would be difficult to falsify that data and get away with it.
Iraq Update from Dr. Victor Davis Hanson (UNCLASSIFIED)
E-mail - Dept of Defense ^ | 12 Oct 07 | Dr. Victor Hanson (PhD)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1910554/posts
Recall that General Wesley Clark was in charge of NATO. Just more proof that just because a person makes the rank of general doesn’t necessarily demonstrate having a sound mind.
That would be my recent take as well, but this guy shooting his mouth off sounds terribly defeatist.
“(The Abu Ghraib prison scandal is) the key reason, the sole reason, that I was forced to retire. I was essentially not offered another position in either a three-star or four-star command.”
What is it with former generals and presidents these days? It used to be when the other guy took over, you STFU and let him do his job without criticism, undercutting him, or doing things to make his job difficult.
Whose side are they on, anyway?
Pres. Bush can really pick em.
This mutt shouldn’t have made General.
Guess who?
Ron Paul.
Divide up a field what 7 to 10 times and you can get that result. How about if you divide up the Military contributions between PRO War Candidates and Anti War Candidates? Who gets the vast bulk of the contributions then?
Give you a hint, it isn’t Ron Paul, Hillary, Obama et al.
Considering there have been more than one or two generals that have stated much the same sentiment in the past few years, I'd say he is.
The point is, you don’t make this type of comment in public. You make it to your superior and let it go up through the ranks.
And when your superiors (mostly citizens with little to no actual service) aren't listening you just keep your mouth shut and keep beating your head against the wall. Wow, what a plan!!
The policy he describes is the current policy being implemented. The policy during the Generals tenure didn't work as well as the General Patraeus' policy.
Ultimately that is President Bush's resonsibility but I sure would love to ask General Sanchez what his reccomendations to his superiors were back then.
Even former Generals sometimes fall prey to the notion that they could have done it better or could do it better now. It's human nature.
I wouldn't think you would have to resort to searching on a single work like 'commander' in an article like this. They are usually a bit more alike. And I probably wouldn't search on 'Iraq' since it is so common.
I can't fault your post. I never saw the first one, anyway, so thanks for this post.
Lemme see. To redacts his claims he says: there has been a "crisis of leadership" in the administration.... From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan to the administration's latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economic and military power.
Which part of this do you think is incorrect? This administrations planning for what would happen after the blitzkrieg that toppled Sadam was somewhere between pathetic and nonexistent. The inability to organize to rebuild the society after the war was over was somewhere between pathetic and non-existent - and I regret to say that Rummy bears a lot of the responsibility for that along with Rice and Bush.
And Sanchez fought the war with exactly that spirit. It showed.
One more hopeful lining up for a job with a future Clinton administration.
#####
That was my first thought also.
He took a terrible harassment from the Congressional committees in front of which he and others with “ties” to Abu Ghraib had to testify. They were insulted for hours at a time. It was the beginning of the undisquised ugliness from elected dems against our military leaders.
Certainly you have some evidence supporting this assertion. I'd love to see it. And BTW, his superiors on the JCOS had equal or more military experience than General Sanchez. Are you also privy to the advice of the JCOS given to President Bush?
He has been hearing about the poor planning for after the ejection of Sadam right from the start and from a lot of folks who were good generals and had a lot of experience in the region (and I don't mean the legion of tele 4stars). Rummy fired some and others resigned as a matter of principal.
I don't agree with the naysayers who say we should not have done this, but this administration is suffering from the same kind of lack of knowledgeable, thoughtful and experienced leadership that afflicts the entire senior half of the baby boom generation. I don't think history is going to be kind to Rummy, Bush, Rice, or Cheney in this regard.
My uncle was the captain of the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. After the Gulf of Tonkin resolution his next command was head of NROTC at Rice University.
Stuff happens to careers!!! He got a Bronze Star and a career-ending assignment. He never went public with his ‘version’ of the events that weekend, or moaned to the media.
Do you mean to say that mistakes were made in a war?
BTW, how long should it take to "rebuild the society after the war"?
And you believe ABC news????
Maybe ours. I don't think most of those with a rosey view of all of this have a clue how fouled up the inner agency process (national security council) is under the lack of leadership of Hadley and his predecessor, Rice. That State, Defense, etc. all squabble and go in different directions is largely the result of the ineffectiveness of the NSC.
What is your inside knowledge regarding the operations of the NSC when Sandy Berger was in charge?
Well, either that or you make statements in the press that can bolster the mood of the enemy. Tell me which is worse. If you’re on the ground, do you want the enemy to be emboldened?
You have it all wrong. This is not a traditional war. Everything changed on 9/11. It has been Bush's genius to see that so long as the terrorists are fighting us in Iraq, they won't be fighting us here on our soil. So long as the war in Iraq continues, the casualties will be mostly Arabs rather than Americans. If we had put down the insurgency sooner, the terrorists would be here in America today.
President Bush is a genius at strategy. No one should be surprised if some bureaucrat general doesn't appreciate him. That's why he's not commanding troops anymore.
The big mistake was not planning for what to do after Sadam was ejected. I don't know whether you call that the war phase or not.
I have no clue how long it will take to rebuild Iraq, nor does anyone else. Not having planned for it was a big mistake. In fact the plan was to assume that no plan was needed as it wouldn't be a problem. The argument over 100,000 vs 300,000 troops had nothing to do with winning the war, but rather with keeping the peace afterwards. Likewise a lot of folks recommended a different approach to debaathification than just booting everyone, military or civilian out and leaving utter chaos and confusion in its wake. That was Rummy's doing.
On the whole I am a Rumsfeld fan, particularly his approach to military transformation. But his role in the post war disaster is becoming much clearer as time goes on.
Knock me over with a feather. I thought it was [/sarcasm]
....President Bush is a genius at strategy.
Oh really. That is why he foresaw and planned for the ethnic rivalry, and insurgency, which was largely a result of tearing apart the established governing apparatus of the country and replacing it with nothing.
What is funny is that the stuff that Petraeus is bringing in regarding counterinsurgency has long been established n doctrine (this is not our first effort a counterinsurgency in case you were not aware), but planning for it was rejected by the Pentagon crowd (Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cheney) during the planning for the war. A lot of folks advocated this approach right at the beginning.
|
Democratic National Committee Talking Points Issued March 21, 2003
1. “A catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, blah blah blah..." 2. "Women, children, poor, etc." 3. Snivel 4. Whine
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
